Whilst I am not a lawyer, I have to remain aware of my responsibilities as the website owner. In this instance, there appear to be a few brave souls who fearlessly post potentially libelous rubbish from behind their cloaks of anonymity. Well, I warn them now, that should anyone get a court order asking me to reveal what information I have on them, which includes IP addresses which, if necessary, can be used to trace an individual through their ISP, so that any libel action can pursued, I will not hesitate to do so.
What is in the public domain is one thing. Making unsubstantiated allegations about what isn't is an entirely different matter.
A far as this thread is concerned, some of you obviously have an agenda. Sadly, the agenda appears to reflect the inability of some to understand certain basic principles, one being that this case has nothing whatsoever to do with George Croft's previous history. It just so happens that he is the only one with the stamina to continue with the proceedings to this point. The result is that Uk employment law should have been used when considering dismissal of the 49'ers. George was not fired because of any skeletons in his cupboard. He was fired along with the other VETA pilots unfairly and illegally. If Cathay wanted to fire George because of any skeletons in his cupboard then they should have followed the proper procedures, which they didn't. To raise them now, in the context of this thread is puerile.
George Crofts has successfully taken on Cathay and set a precedent so that the rest of the Cathay pilots have recourse to English employment law where applicable. Whatever George Croft's history, they cannot fire him for it now.
So, can we please concentrate on the issue of the ruling from the House of Lords as it applies to UK run companies based in HK and not on George Croft's past history. If you feel you can't resist the urge to have a go at George then at least have cojones to do so up front and without the comfort blanket of anonymity.
